Evolution vs. Creationism

[william jay schroeder]

In post 652 of this thread I briefly outlined the evidence for evolution and against the belief that "evolutionist ... just throw in millions of years."
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10778623&postcount=652

One of the links I provided was the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

One of the examples given is the case of GLO deficency.

Very briefly, monkeys, apes and humans share a non-functional gene, and the commonality of the errors that accumulated in that gene is greater for species that appear physiologically to be more closely related, i.e. the errors look just as they would if we evolved from a common ancestor.

Somewhat less briefly:
The production of vitamin C is controlled by several genes, but one in particular produces an enzyme, L-gulonolactone oxidase (GLO), that is required for the last step in the production of vitamin C.

All species of mammals that have been examined* have, as is expected, a nearly identical gene for producing GLO in essentially the same spot on the chromosomes.
(*It is fairly expensive to do this kind of work so not every of the thousands of species of mammals have been examined)

But monkeys, apes and humans don't produce GLO, we don't produce our own vitamin C.

An examination of DNA from a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, an orangutang and an old world monkey demonstrated that all had the same mutation in the start portion of the gene that produced GLO.

A mutation in the start portion of a gene will generally prevent that gene from being activated at all. In contrast a mutation in the middle of a gene is likely to cause the gene to misbehave, in this case it might create an enzyme that would mal-function rendering the vitamin-C percurser useless, or attacking some other useful bio-chemical, thus a mutation in the middle of the gene will tend to disappear from the gene pool altogether while "merely" stopping the gene in circumstances where there is plenty of vitamin C available from food will allow that mutation to be passed on, and for that non-functional gene to accumulate mutations.

By examining the physiology of the great apes, orangutangs had been placed farthest from humans, then gorillas, with chimpanzees closest and of course monkeys are even farther than orangutangs. In examining the DNA (in particular the gene dealing with vitamin C but other parts as well) it was found that humans share many of the same mutations that chimpanzees have, and that we share fewer with gorillas, fewer still with orangutangs and fewest with the monkey.

Which is what we expect if we evolved from a common ancestor. For some period of time mutations would accumulate which we would share, then as species branched off the mutations they accumulated would be unique to them, while our branch would continue to accumulate mutations unique to ours.

Again, the point here is that we share a non-functional gene and that the differences in the mutations that accumulated in each of the species are what we would expect if descended from a common ancestor in exactly the manner that was predicted by looking at the physiology of the species.

Bla Bla Bla like a said before so what if it is happening now thats great its just infomation of what is happening now and you make it appear to be evolution. mass infomation no conformation. talk origans is the same as i get here, a lot of neat things that happen in our world. were are all the transitional forms on earth. if its random mutation then their would be a lot of species with extra stuff for future use in another species. everything is fullyformed and functional. unless we all evolve at the same time. and so slowly we dont even catch any of it.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I hear that alot... where is the bible does it say tolerate and accept everybody? i know it says take care of the poor but it also says preach the gospel to all nations. Just one gospel, not gospels. Jesus also said i am the way, not one of many ways. LEts not always assocciate Chritianity with lasseiz faire tolerance

Paul writes that Christians should not dispute among themselves over non-essential details, his example being the celebration of holy days including the Sabbath.
And in 1 Corinthians 13:12
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. "
Which suggests that we have imperfect knowledge, which in turn suggests we should be slow and careful in our judgements.
Jesus also told the parable of the tares in which the servants of the master offered to go weed the garden, but the master said, "Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
In Mark 9 we read
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Which reinforces Paul's comments that just because somebody doesn't follow your way of worshipping God doesn't mean they aren't Christian.
(KJV quotes courtesy of biblegateway.com)

"Lasseiz faire tolerance"? No, of course not, but neither the rigid intolerance of many fundamentalists.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In the first place, unless you are going to comment on a specific point do not quote a long post in its entirity, it greatly clutters up the board. Just leave in enough to identify what post it is and by whom and delete the rest, noting that it has be cut.

Bla Bla Bla like a said before so what if it is happening now thats great its just infomation of what is happening now and you make it appear to be evolution. mass infomation no conformation. talk origans is the same as i get here, a lot of neat things that happen in our world. were are all the transitional forms on earth. if its random mutation then their would be a lot of species with extra stuff for future use in another species. everything is fullyformed and functional. unless we all evolve at the same time. and so slowly we dont even catch any of it.

In the second place I can't make heads or tales of what you are trying to say here.
In the third place you do not appear to have addressed my example, how exactly do you explain shared non-functional genes which have accumulated mutations in exactly the manner expected if we were formed by common descent?
In the fourth place, have you anywhere dealt with specific examples? All I see in your posts is naysaying, which does not an argument make.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I agree with you for the most part. I just wanted to point out one historical person whose story really pulls at my heartstrings. There should make a movie about him. Does one already exist?

I did a google, but I couldn't find one.
Did some reading, interesting history there, I knew vaguely of him but no specifics, thanks for bringing him up.

 

[ProtestantDan]

I did a google, but I couldn't find one.
Did some reading, interesting history there, I knew vaguely of him but no specifics, thanks for bringing him up.

No problem. I was doing a research paper recently on the motivations and causes of the Protestant Reformation and he was big. His burning at the stake is as moving as any Hollywood fiction.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Bla Bla Bla like a said before so what if it is happening now thats great its just infomation of what is happening now and you make it appear to be evolution. mass infomation no conformation.

The point is there are several strings of evidence that point in that direction and none that provide falsification.

were are all the transitional forms on earth.

All life forms are transitional. Evolution has not stopped.

if its random mutation then their would be a lot of species with extra stuff for future use in another species.

Erm, no there wouldn’t.

everything is fullyformed and functional.

Well to an extent, becasue if a life form isn’t fully formed and functional its dead.

and so slowly we dont even catch any of it.

Now your beginning to get it, sort of.

Ghost

 

[ProtestantDan]

Bla Bla Bla like a said before so what if it is happening now thats great its just infomation of what is happening now and you make it appear to be evolution. mass infomation no conformation. talk origans is the same as i get here, a lot of neat things that happen in our world. were are all the transitional forms on earth. if its random mutation then their would be a lot of species with extra stuff for future use in another species. everything is fullyformed and functional. unless we all evolve at the same time. and so slowly we dont even catch any of it.

Some points that come to mind:

Some transitional forms:
Sponges. Sponges are a perfect bridge between unicellular and multicellular organisms. Sponge cells can live fine on their own, but prefer to be together. A famous experiment involves pushing sponge through something like cheesecloth and into a bucket of water. If you look in the water, the cells are all over the place and there are clumps of sponge. If you come back the next day, it's one sponge. They are capable of both being uni and multicellular. A transitional form from simple to complex organisms.

Amphibians. Amphibians are a transitional form between truly aquatic and truly land reptiles. Amphibians can survive out of water and eat, move around, etc. However, they must return to the water to lay their eggs. The emergence of shelled eggs by true reptiles allowed the move away from water, rather than just out of water. Amphibians bridge the transition from aquatic creatures to land creatures.

Everything is fully formed for the current state of existence. Evolution is continuous. How come horse ancestors had many toes while modern horses have a hoof? It's because of evolution.

It's easy to tie ancient creature shapes and traits to modern creatures for many reasons. First, we are all familiar with the looks and characteristics of modern animals. If I told 10 people to draw a cat, most of them would be similar. If told 10 people to draw ramapithecus or cotylosaur, you'd probably get a lot more variation. Second, we have lots of living creatures to study. It's easier to test for speciation in living creatures than in extinct ones. (Actually it's impossible to test for speciation in extinct creatures). Also, it's easier to track the changes. When comparing an ancestor to a modern creature, the most amount of time has passed, allowing the most amount of change to occur.

Well, that's all for now, I hope this sheds some light on the subject.

 

[william jay schroeder]

In the first place, unless you are going to comment on a specific point do not quote a long post in its entirity, it greatly clutters up the board. Just leave in enough to identify what post it is and by whom and delete the rest, noting that it has be cut.
In the second place I can't make heads or tales of what you are trying to say here.
In the third place you do not appear to have addressed my example, how exactly do you explain shared non-functional genes which have accumulated mutations in exactly the manner expected if we were formed by common descent?
In the fourth place, have you anywhere dealt with specific examples? All I see in your posts is naysaying, which does not an argument make.

im computer stupid and havent figured out how to do that yet.well evolutionist created the theory so why wouldnt what they find not fit. they take from it what seems to conclude their theory and that is suposed to prove it to us. Your still telling me what is happening right now and just telling me to believe that this is how it happened with all the millio0ns of years. All the examples are simple cell mutations, try it on a large animal like at rat or monkey and see what happens. if its benificial then maybe our think a little harder about it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[Another Pedantic Tangent]

The plural of evolutionist is evolutionists

[/Another Pedantic Tangent]

well evolutionist created the theory so why wouldnt what they find not fit. they take from it what seems to conclude their theory and that is suposed to prove it to us.

No. Let's address this particular error. No scientists are currently engaged in proving evolution happened. That's taken as a given, as it's been established for a century. In the same way, no-one's particular interested in proving that phlogiston doesn't exist, or that gravity is real.

What scientists are now engaged in is filling in the details of how it happened.

 

[Ondoher]

im computer stupid and havent figured out how to do that yet.well evolutionist created the theory so why wouldnt what they find not fit. they take from it what seems to conclude their theory and that is suposed to prove it to us. Your still telling me what is happening right now and just telling me to believe that this is how it happened with all the millio0ns of years. All the examples are simple cell mutations, try it on a large animal like at rat or monkey and see what happens. if its benificial then maybe our think a little harder about it.

A little science lesson for you.

Many of the examples that have been given to you are used to demonstrate the historical evidence for common ancestry, not necessarily observations of ongoing change.

The way that science tests any hypothesis, such as common ancestry, is to determine what must be true, right now, if the hypothesis is correct. Given the hypothesis of common ancestry, we can deduce many things that must be true. For example, both extant and extinct species should fit within a single family tree of species (called a phylogeny). We should not find species that show diagnostic traits intermediate between taxa that are not directly related on this tree. For instance, finding a whale with feathers.

This is how "transitional" fossils are recognized, by their position in this tree between key taxa, such as between tetrapods and fish. There are plenty of this sort of transitional. What is frequently remarked on is how little detailed branching exists on this tree. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule, of course such as in cetaceans, equines and hominids, but the fossil record is still imperfect.

In addition to predictions about the fossil record, common ancestry makes others, such as the convergence of independent phylogenies. But that's a different conversation.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

im computer stupid and havent figured out how to do that yet.

highlight the text and hit the delete button

well evolutionist created the theory so why wouldnt what they find not fit.

Look at the data and provide an explanation.
I would remind you the bearing false witness is a sin, and you are essentially calling 95+% of biologists liars without providing any evidence.

Your still telling me what is happening right now and just telling me to believe that this is how it happened with all the millio0ns of years.

I don't know about "happening", this is where the DNA is right now, and somehow it got there. Provide an alternative explanation or demonstrate how the evolutionary explanation is flawed. If you can't then you are just jumping up and down and shouting "is so, is so".

All the examples are simple cell mutations, try it on a large animal like at rat or monkey and see what happens. if its benificial then maybe our think a little harder about it.

As was the case in our earlier exchange, I don't see how this has anything to do with what I wrote.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

evolutionist created the theory so why wouldnt what they find not fit.

Simple scientific method. Part of the process of investigating a theory is subjecting it to falsificationism, which basically means we look for things that prove us wrong. Basicaly we figure out what we shouldn’t see if the theory is true. Then we go looking for that. if we find it we know we are wrong and don’t waste any more time on it. If not, the theory grows stronger and some one else has a crack at falsifying it.

That's an oversimplified version, but that's about it. Google Karl Poppper or Falsificationism for a better grasp of the method, but be prepared to spend a lot of time on it.

Ghost

 

[twenty1blakjack]

Evolution has not stopped.t

Humans have stopped our evolution, because of the lack of natural selection. For humans, it has stopped.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Humans have stopped our evolution, because of the lack of natural selection. For humans, it has stopped.

I'm not so sure about this. Some conjecture I've heard has predicted that humans will eventually only have four toes, due to the constriction of shoes. This is evidenced by the shrinking size of both the small toe and of the nail of the small toe. Another theory holds that human brains/heads will keep getting bigger and bigger. Though I don't see how this is possible if we want to keep having births out of the birth canal.

 

[meteorologist]

How could man coexist with the dinosaurs?

 

[Rat_bytes]

I'm not so sure about this. Some conjecture I've heard has predicted that humans will eventually only have four toes, due to the constriction of shoes. This is evidenced by the shrinking size of both the small toe and of the nail of the small toe. Another theory holds that human brains/heads will keep getting bigger and bigger. Though I don't see how this is possible if we want to keep having births out of the birth canal.

The first theory about the feet is wrong. That reasoning is very close to Jean Pierre Lamarck's theory of evolution, which has been proved wrong. Parents do not pass characteristics that have been affected by environment on to offspring, as in sore feet from tight shoes. The shoes do not affect a person's gametes.
The brain theory is slightly more plausible, although by that reasoning people would have to be marrying because of a partner's intelligence rather than any other factor, which may or may not be true.

Humans have stopped our evolution, because of the lack of natural selection. For humans, it has stopped.

This is a fallacy. Every species is evolving all the time. Whether or not natural selection is in effect is immaterial. Humans are evolving at the same rate they always have.

 

[kingreaper]

The first theory about the feet is wrong. That reasoning is very close to Jean Pierre Lamarck's theory of evolution, which has been proved wrong. Parents do not pass characteristics that have been affected by environment on to offspring, as in sore feet from tight shoes. The shoes do not affect a person's gametes.
The brain theory is slightly more plausible, although by that reasoning people would have to be marrying because of a partner's intelligence rather than any other factor, which may or may not be true.



This is a fallacy. Every species is evolving all the time. Whether or not natural selection is in effect is immaterial. Humans are evolving at the same rate they always have.

actually, I think that humans rate of darwwins has significantly decreased

 

[ProtestantDan]

Keep in mind, there is also cultural evolution, and right now that's moving at the speed of light.

 

[Rat_bytes]

you'll have to repeat that, please, I can't understand you.

 

[KTskater]

ok, here my take on teh whole thing.

So suposedly we evoled from ape like cretures right? Because the skulls we have found are shaped differently. Ever noticed that and African American has a larger jaw than someone who came from England?, and different size of the actul skull? I can honestly believe that we were created by the One-Almighty God, but humans have "evolved". We have different skin colors based on our surroundings, different bodily features based on what we eat and where we live.And I simply connot fathom how some random explosion created EVERY SINGLE PERSON with different finger print. Even identicle twins have different finger prints

So humans obviouly didn't look exactly as we do now when we were created. And there is scientific and Biblical truth too the theory that the earth was one great cotanent at one point. Now the splitting of the contenent would dramiticly change the the climate, the plants that grow there and naturly the animals and people that lived on it.

that is my take on this whole issue.